Black vs. White Anger…Must We Be Enemies? Can We Be Allies?

One of the things, this time in our history is showing me is the degree to which we all think our circumstances are ‘unique’: blacks and whites, elite and plebiscites, old and young, working class and middle class. We all think we have a more of a grievance than the other guy.

Nowhere is our conflict national played out more starkly than in our politics, and our capacity (or lack there of) to see one another as allies rather than ‘enemies’.

Take for example Donald Trump’s core constituency – the white male without a college degree, which means they have a high school diploma. These are people who, at one time had relatively good paying jobs, and have either lost those jobs through off-shoring, because of technology and because of age, education or lack of training, have little to no opportunity (as they see it) to participate in a new economy. They are experiencing a rising drug abuse problem, one of the surest signs of hopelessness and despair. They pay less and less attention to the impact of religion, aside from the more cultural and communal aspects of faith.

Yet, blacks, Hispanics, the so-called ‘natural constituency’ of Hillary Clinton and the Democrats, say pretty much the same things.

Take a look at this video clip from Saturday morning’s ‘Smerconish’ on CNN. A young man, J.D. Vance who grew up in Appalachia, has written a book entitled,  ‘Hillbilly Elegy: A Memoir of a Family and Culture in Crisis’ in which he seeks to explain why these people, in terms of culture, in terms of dwindling career prospects and fears of lack of opportunity for their children feel the bitterness, resentment and disaffection that he claims as the rational for supporting Donald Trump.

But, this rationale has been pointed to as the reasons for the poverty within the black community. William Julius Wilson, wrote a book years ago, entitled ‘When Work Disappears’, in which he describes the rise of poverty and the crumbling of society and culture within the inner city…

“There is a new poverty in American metropolises that has consequences for a range of issues relating to the quality of life in urban areas, including race relations. By the ‘new urban poverty’, I mean poor, segregated neighbourhoods in which a majority of individual adults are either unemployed or have dropped out or never been a part of the labour force. This jobless poverty today stands in sharp contrast to previous periods. In 1950, a substantial portion of the urban black population in the United States was poor but they were working. Urban poverty was quite extensive but people held jobs. However, as we entered the 1990s most poor adults were not working in a typical week in the ghetto neighbourhoods of America’s larger cities. For example, in 1950 a significant majority of adults held jobs in a typical week in the three neighbourhoods that represent the historic core of the Black Belt in the city of Chicago — Douglas, Grand Boulevard and Washington Park — the three neighbourhoods of Chicago that received the bulk of black migrants from the South in the early to mid-twentieth century. But by 1990 only four in ten in Douglas worked in a typical week, 1 in 3 in Washington Park, and 1 in 4 in Grand Boulevard. In 1950, 69 percent of all males 14 and over who lived in these three neighbourhoods worked in a typical week, and in 1960, 64 percent of this group were so employed.

“However, by 1990 only 37 percent of all males 16 and over held jobs in a typical week in these three neighbourhoods. The disappearance of work has adversely affected not only individuals and families, but the social life of neighbourhoods as well. Inner-city joblessness in America is a severe problem that is often overlooked or obscured when the focus is mainly on poverty and its consequences. Despite increases in the concentration of poverty since 1970, inner cities in the United States have always featured high levels of poverty, but the levels of inner-city joblessness reached during the first half of the 1990s was unprecedented. I should note that when I speak of ‘joblessness’ I am not solely referring to official unemployment. The unemployment rate, as measure  in the United States, represents only the percentage of workers in the official labour force — that is, those who are actively looking for work. It does not include those who are outside of or have dropped out the labour market, including the nearly 6 million males 25 to 60 who appeared in the census statistics but were not recorded in the labour market statistics in 1990 (Thurow 1995). These uncounted males in the labour market are disproportionately represented in the inner-city ghettos…”

“The disappearance of work in many inner-city neighbourhoods is in part related to the nation-wide decline in the fortunes of low-skilled workers. The sharp decline in the relative demand for unskilled labour has had a more adverse effect on blacks than on whites in the United States because a substantially larger proportion of African-Americans are unskilled. Although the number of skilled blacks (including managers, professionals and technicians) has increased sharply in the last several years, the proportion of those who are unskilled remains large, because the black population, burdened by cumulative experiences of racial restrictions, was overwhelmingly unskilled just several decades ago (Schwartzman 1997). The factors involved in the decreased relative demand for unskilled labour include:

• the computer revolution (i.e., the spread of new technologies that displaced low-skilled workers and rewarded the more highly trained),

• the rapid growth in college enrolment that increased the supply and reduced the relative cost of skilled labour, and

• the growing internationalisation of economic activity, including trade liberalisation policies which reduced the price of imports and raised the output of export industries (Schwartzman 1997; Krueger 1997; Katz 1996).

“Whereas the increased output of export industries aids skill workers, simply because skill workers are heavily represented in export industries, increasing imports, especially those from developing countries that compete with labour-intensive industries (for example, apparel, textile, toy, footwear and some manufacturing industries) hurt unskilled labour (Schwartzman 1997), and therefore would have significant negative implications for American black workers. For example, 40 percent of the workforce in the apparel industry is African-American. But, inner-city workers in the United States face an additional problem — the growing suburbanisation of jobs. Most ghetto residents cannot afford an automobile and therefore have to rely on public transit systems that make the connection between inner-city neighbourhoods and suburban job locations difficult and time consuming.”

Granted, while black unemployment improved throughout the ’90’s, the reasons for unemployment and poverty is are virtually the same. Certainly the results are. Yet, white anger around these issues is considered almost ‘righteous indignation’, while black anger is considered to be a type of rage of an ‘unworthy’ class.

Why aren’t we allies?

There is clearly an election year effort to divide our country along race and class lines. There always is. It appears to be working…again.

Elizabeth Warren made reference to a speech made by Martin Luther King in which he spoke of the origins of the efforts of a more affluent white class to divide poor blacks and whites, along race and class lines. The speech was actually given at the end of the 1965 Selma to Montgomery March, that ultimately led to the passage of the Voting Rights Act.

Here is the excerpt that contains the actual quote in context…

“Racial segregation as a way of life did not come about as a natural result of hatred between the races immediately after the Civil War. There were no laws segregating the races then. And as the noted historian, C. Vann Woodward, in his book, The Strange Career of Jim Crow, clearly points out, the segregation of the races was really a political stratagem employed by the emerging Bourbon interests in the South to keep the southern masses divided and southern labor the cheapest in the land. You see, it was a simple thing to keep the poor white masses working for near-starvation wages in the years that followed the Civil War. Why, if the poor white plantation or mill worker became dissatisfied with his low wages, the plantation or mill owner would merely threaten to fire him and hire former Negro slaves and pay him even less. Thus, the southern wage level was kept almost unbearably low.

“Toward the end of the Reconstruction era, something very significant happened. That is what was known as the Populist Movement. The leaders of this movement began awakening the poor white masses and the former Negro slaves to the fact that they were being fleeced by the emerging Bourbon interests. Not only that, but they began uniting the Negro and white masses into a voting bloc that threatened to drive the Bourbon interests from the command posts of political power in the South.

“To meet this threat, the southern aristocracy began immediately to engineer this development of a segregated society. I want you to follow me through here because this is very important to see the roots of racism and the denial of the right to vote. Through their control of mass media, they revised the doctrine of white supremacy. They saturated the thinking of the poor white masses with it, thus clouding their minds to the real issue involved in the Populist Movement. They then directed the placement on the books of the South of laws that made it a crime for Negroes and whites to come together as equals at any level. And that did it. That crippled and eventually destroyed the Populist Movement of the nineteenth century.

“If it may be said of the slavery era that the white man took the world and gave the Negro Jesus, then it may be said of the Reconstruction era that the southern aristocracy took the world and gave the poor white man Jim Crow. He gave him Jim Crow. And when his wrinkled stomach cried out for the food that his empty pockets could not provide, he ate Jim Crow, a psychological bird that told him that no matter how bad off he was, at least he was a white man, better than the black man. And he ate Jim Crow. And when his undernourished children cried out for the necessities that his low wages could not provide, he showed them the Jim Crow signs on the buses and in the stores, on the streets and in the public buildings. And his children, too, learned to feed upon Jim Crow, their last outpost of psychological oblivion…”

It is interesting to me that the party of individualism and self reliance is actively courting the votes of those who perceive themselves as ‘victims’ of ‘the system’. It’s ‘the man’ keeping them down in other words. They are blaming the government for their children turning to drugs (whatever happened to “Just say ‘No’?). And what’s the difference in jobs leaving to go overseas and jobs leaving communities and moving to the hinterlands where public transportation doesn’t go?.

It seems like poor and near poor whites have much more in common than separates them from poor black people. They would appear to be natural allies. Yet they and their interests are being pitted against one another. And yet the answer for one group is that the government will fix your problems. The answer for the other group is ‘pull yourself up by your own bootstraps. And both are being told someone else is to blame for their lot in life.

Anyone see anything wrong with this picture?



Yes, Virginia, There is a Progressive Church…

Please read my good friend Eric Folkerth’s blog post, regarding ‘progressive’ Christianity.

It’s an interesting piece in which he relates his interview with a reporter after she watched the Democratic Convention last week. She was surprised at how often God and faith were mentioned during the quadrennial political confab.


But then again, not really. Eric’s right in his piece…the public’s view of Christianity is labeled ‘evangelical’ (code word for conservative, Biblical literalist and Republican). The idea that there are believers who may question certain Biblical passages, or doctrinal orthodoxies, but who name Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord is, for many in and outside of the Church…particularly in America…inconceivable.

The reason for the reporter’s interview of Eric, was Rev. William Barber’s speech at the DNC. It was, by almost any measure, a powerful, eloquent, sermon-like, call to America’s ‘heart’. But more than that, he, more than any other preacher I’ve heard in a long, long time, gave the type of speech reminiscent of Dr. Martin Luther King. Barber, who is a pastor, and leads North Carolina’s NAACP, and who came to prominence as leader and spokesperson for the Moral Monday protests, which for years brought thousands of North Carolinians to the state capitol to protest the right wing political agenda of the state legislature,  interwove the themes of his speech with the claims of Christianity, the aspirations of our Constitution with the spiritual fervor of the black church. He did so, as did King, so masterfully that there could be no ‘church-state’ argument.

Apparently, the reporter has never listened to King, or has a rather ahistorical view of American politics. Even I was taken aback when Eric quotes her as saying, “So, how come we don’t hear about you guys more often?” Eric’s response was spot on, “Because you never call us. Because, when there is a some social/political issue in the world, the media calls the pastor of Prestonwood Baptist, or First Baptist, get a quote, and then posits that as the response from “all Christians.””

The idea, that the ‘real’ Christians are considered to be ‘evangelical’ clergy and members of ‘mega-churches’ is offensive to me, as it is with many other believers who are ‘progressive’. We need to remember (or learn), that legitimate Christianity comes in all hues and colors, and to anoint as legitimate only those Christians who gather in large numbers, or who vote a certain way, or who are courted by particular politicians is short-sighted, but wrong.

My only argument with Eric’s blogpost is that he leaves out the substantial influence of the Black church when he mentions historic examples of ‘progressive’ Christianity. I’m not only talking about Martin Luther King, but those who influenced him. Clergy of great stature, the theologian and mystic Howard Thurman, James Cone, Theodore Parker and Benjamin E. Mayes, all helped shape King’s theological world view. In fact, the notion of ‘liberation theology’ (championed and advanced by James Cone, in America), is actually a Latin American theological construct advanced by Archbishop Oscar Romero and Father Miguel d’Escoto. And in effect takes Biblical stories like that written in the Book of Exodus, and says, that Christians can read God’s dealings with humanity from the bottom up; that the poor, have a special place in the heart of God, so special, in fact that the more you identify with the poor, the dispossessed and the marginalized, the closer you are to the heart of God.

‘Evangelicalism’ in America, identifies more with a Calvinist approach to scripture, which says that the ‘elect’ are the most materially successful, and draws all kinds of straight (and frankly crooked) lines from hard work to material prosperity, which frankly many of us don’t see in the Bible or, at least balance with equally strong calls to compassion and mercy to the poor in scripture.

It is that liberation (or progressive, if you will) theology that kept African-Americans alive, throughout slavery,  Jim Crow and segregation and which fueled the modern era Civil Rights Movement. The Black Church has always had an admixture of conservative political, cultural and spiritual thought, as a part of its social world view, while reading a ‘progressive’ ethos in scripture, which fostered a ‘conservative’ focus relative to our citizenship in this country inspired and encouraged the development of black businesses, supported education and other voluntary associations, and that helped black communities survive and thrive in the midst of oppression.

But, I think there is a sense in which the Black Church has been marginalized in the mind of mainstream America, when President Obama’s pastor, Dr. Jeremiah Wright, was vilified for his ‘god-damn America’ sermon. In context, it is actually a patriotic sermon, which points out black America’s hopes and dreams for America and America’s disappointment of those hopes and dreams. It forced many black America’s pastor’s into silence or forced them into a hyper-conservative posture, in which more and more churches preached more and more, only ‘salvation’. As opposed to speaking out more obviously on issues of ‘social justice’, in reaction to that criticism, a more corrupting type of ‘Hollywood’ version of church, pushed aside the more ‘progressive/prophetic’ Christian message of the black church.

Eric extols the United Methodist Church’s ‘open/welcoming fellowships’ for the LGBT community, is an outgrowth of that influence, because long before, the were open to the LGBT community they were open to and supportive of the Civil Rights movement’s aims and objectives.

Still, I would be remiss if I were to leave anyone with the impression that the progressive church, is a modern-day construct around issues of race and sexual orientation. It was the progressive church, which around the turn of the century before last, championed what would be termed, in this modern era, ‘social justice issues’. Issues such as child labor laws, poverty and unionization. Arguably, it wasn’t until later on in the century – around mid to late 40’s, I believe, that a more conservative strain of Christianity, began to impact America’s religious community. First around issues of faith, and around the late 70’s early 8o’s around faith and politics.

Let me end by saying, I’m actually offended by the usage of the terms ‘evangelical’ and ‘progressive’ when it comes to Christianity. They are essentially political designations. However, I also understand that they are cultural designations as well. I have read some conservative Christians write, that they cannot see how any ‘real’ Christian can ever vote Democratic. Which means that even within the church, we have divided ourselves along political and cultural lines. Its important, I guess, to label, in the same way we label cans of vegetables. We have to know who we’re dealing with. Those of us who are ‘progressive’ are Christian with a different perspective. And the world needs to know that perspective. So Eric was right, if the press keeps going to conservative mega-church pastors as the only legitimate ‘spokesmen’ for the Christian Church, the world will think, this is what the Church ‘thinks’. No, it’s not. We are diverse in thought – even within progressive circles. We simply agree on one thing…Jesus is Lord.

Now, if we can all agree on what that means!

What do you think?